Limitation | Delay Condonation Cannot Be An Act Of Generosity: Supreme Court Refuses To Condone 31-Year Delay To Challenge Decree Sentence Suspension In Murder Cases Only Under Exceptional Circumstances; Presumption Of Innocence Erased Upon Conviction: Supreme Court Inquiry Commission Report Cannot Be Used For Disciplinary Action If Statutory Right To Cross-Examine Denied: Gauhati High Court Use Of Trademark On Website Accessible In India Constitutes Domestic Use, Geo-Blocking Mandatory For Territorial Restrictions: Delhi High Court Civil Court Jurisdiction To Interfere With DRT Proceedings Is Absolutely Barred Even For Third Parties: Madras High Court Adding a Prefix Can’t Erase Deceptive Similarity – Delhi High Court Orders Removal of ‘ARUN’ from Trademark ‘AiC ARUN’ Cannot Resile From Mediated Settlement After Taking Benefits: Supreme Court Quashes Wife's DV Case, Grants Divorce Absolute Indemnity Obligation Triggers Immediately Upon Court-Directed Deposit, Not On Final Appeal: Supreme Court Magistrate Directing Investigation Under Section 156(3) CrPC Only Requires Prima Facie Satisfaction Of Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court Cancellation Of Sale Deed Under Specific Relief Act Not A Pre-Condition To Initiate Criminal Case For Forgery: Supreme Court Amalgamated Company Cannot Claim Set-Off Of Predecessor's Losses Under Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act Without Specific Statutory Provision: Supreme Court Overlapping Split Chargesheets May Raise Double Jeopardy Concerns, Supreme Court Notes While Granting Bail To Former Jharkhand Minister Supreme Court Grants Bail To Convicted Ex-Jharkhand Minister Facing Overlapping Prosecutions From Split Chargesheets Electricity Act Appellate Authority Is A Quasi-Judicial Body Subject To High Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mere Discrepancy In Date Of Birth Across Certificates Doesn't Amount To Fraud If No Undue Advantage Is Derived: Allahabad High Court Interest Earned On Funds Temporarily Parked Pending Project Deployment Cannot Be Taxed As 'Income From Other Sources': Delhi High Court Reference Court Cannot Set Aside Collector's Award Or Remand Matter For Fresh Determination: Allahabad High Court Administrative Transfer Causing Revenue Loss Defies Court Process: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Ferry Ghat Handover Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court

“Bail Denied to Accused Allegedly Running Jihadi WhatsApp Group: Allahabad Court Cites Gravity of Allegations”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judicial decision, the Hon’ble Pankaj Bhatia, J., presiding over Court No. 75, rejected the bail application of an accused in a case involving allegations of running a WhatsApp group that spread jihadi literature and videos. The applicant, identified as Inamul Haq alias Inamul Imtiyaz, was charged with being the administrator of the group and promoting anti-India sentiments.

The FIR lodged against Inamul Haq revealed disturbing allegations. The applicant was alleged to have formed a WhatsApp group that disseminated literature classified as jihadi, along with sharing videos promoting extremist ideologies. The applicant was reportedly the administrator of the group and even admitted to aspiring to become a “jihadi.” The FIR also mentioned that Inamul Haq was associated with a group known as “Lashkar,” and that he had been operating a WhatsApp group for a significant duration.

The prosecution argued that the applicant’s involvement went beyond merely spreading literature. It was alleged that the WhatsApp group actively facilitated the acquisition of weapons, further escalating the gravity of the charges. The group was purportedly responsible for enticing individuals to join its ranks.

The court’s observation stressed the seriousness of the allegations and the potential threat posed to public order. Citing the relevant legal provisions, including Section 121-A of the Indian Penal Code, the court highlighted the offense of conspiring to overawe the Central or State Government through criminal force. While acknowledging the right to practice and propagate religion as guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution, the court noted that the nature of the allegations indicated the potential conspiracy to commit a serious offense.

In light of the gravity of the allegations and the potential risk to public order, the court concluded that no case for granting bail was established. Consequently, the bail application was rejected.

This decision serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between religious freedoms and potential threats to national security. The court’s emphasis on the seriousness of the allegations underscores the need to ensure public order while safeguarding fundamental rights.

The rejection of the bail application sends a strong message about the court’s commitment to upholding the law and maintaining public safety in cases that involve potential conspiracy and promotion of extremist ideologies.

Date of Decision: 9.8.2023

Inamul Haq Alias Inamul Imtiyaz  vs State of U.P.   

Latest Legal News